IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION No. 13471 of 2012 For Approval and Signature:
HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER Sd/-
========================================================= 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? No 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? No 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? No ========================================================= CHIRAG K SHUKLA - Petitioner(s) Versus AHMEDABAD MUNICIPAL CORPORATION & 4 - Respondent(s) ========================================================= Appearance :
MR NK MAJMUDAR for Petitioner(s) : 1, None for Respondent(s) : 1 - 5.
========================================================= CORAM : HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE K.M.THAKER ORAL ORDER Date : 29/10/2012
1. The petitioner has preferred present petition seeking below mentioned relief/s:-
“8(A).............
(B) issue appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent authorities to make payment of Rs.2.00 lacs by way of compensation towards the financial loss caused to the petitioner by respondent nos. 3 to 5 by destroying 40 boxes containing cooking butter in illegal, arbitrary and high-handed manner and further appropriate directions be issued upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 authorities to take appropriate action against the respondent nos. 3 to 5 by holding Departmental Inquiry for destroying 40 boxes containing cooking butter in illegal, arbitrary manner and imposing restriction in respect of usage of 53 boxes of cooking butter without there being any reason in absolutely illegal, arbitrary manner in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case; (C)..................
(D) ”
2. The petitioner seeks that the Court, in exercise of prerogative and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should direct the Municipal Commissioner or Competent Authority of respondent Commissioner to take action against its employees on the basis of the allegations made by the petitioner in present petition.
2.1 The request made by the petitioner, if accepted and allowed, would amount to Court's interference in the administration of respondent Municipal Corporation which the Court would not do in exercise of prerogative and discretionary writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
2.2 So as to support and justify the request made in present petition the petitioner has alleged, inter alia, that:-
“2. By way of preferring this petition, petitioner seeks to invoke extraordinary jurisdiction vested in this Hon'ble High Court under Article – 226 of the Constitution of India and thereby seeks to challenge the illegal, arbitrary and high- handed action on the part of the respondent nos. 3 to 5 who are serving as Food Safety Officers under Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation, in seizing 40 Boxes containing cooking butter and destroying them without following due procedure as per Sec. 10 and 12 of the Prevention of food Adulteration Act, 1954 and without drawing any Panchnama and without carrying-out Rojkam and the respondent nos. 3 to 5 have caused financial loss of Rs 2.00 lacs to the petitioner by destroying 40 Boxes containing cooking butter in absolutely illegal, arbitrary and high-handed manner, inasmuch as on 15.3.2012, without following any procedure of law, without drawing any panchnama and without carrying-out any Rojkam, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 had made the petitioner to execute writing by coercion and thereafter they seized the 40 Boxes containing the cooking butter and took away the boxes without following due procedure of law and they destroyed the 40 boxes containing cooking butter in absolutely arbitrary, illegal and high-handed manner. That the concerned respondent officers had also imposed restrictions upon the usage of remaining 53 Boxes containing cooking butter for a period of almost 1 months and 15 days. The restriction imposed with regard to usage of 53 Boxes containing cooking butter came to be lifted and intimation was given to the effect that in respect of 53 Boxes containing cooking butter was relieved by them as the said boxes were meeting with the standard. Thus, by acting in absolutely illegal, arbitrary and high-handed manner the respondents nos. 3 to 5 officers have caused huge financial loss of Rs.2.00 lacs to the petitioner, therefore, by way of preferring this petition petitioner prays that appropriate directions be issued upon the respondent authorities to make payment of Rs.2.00 lacs by way of compensation towards the financial loss caused to the petitioner by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 by destroying 40 boxes containing cooking butter of the petitioner in absolutely illegal, arbitrary and high-handed manner and appropriate directions be issued upon the respondent nos. 1 and 2 authorities to take appropriate departmental action against the respondent nos. 3 to 5 officers for acting in illegal and arbitrary manner as aforesaid in the aforesaid peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.
3.5 The petitioner states that ultimately Laboratory Inspection Report came to be prepared by the Public Health Laboratory, Ahmedabad Municipal Corporation dated 31.3.2012 and all the samples were found to be conformed to the standard. Annexed hereto and marked Annexure-B to this petition is a copy of the Report dated 31.3.2012. Thus, all the samples taken by the concerned officers from 53 boxes containing cooking butter were found up to the mark. That despite the report came to be prepared on 31.3.2012, the restriction imposed by the officer concerned with regard to usage of said 53 boxes came to be removed on 27.4.2012. That despite the petitioner made various representations requesting them to release 53 boxes, nothing further was done by the concerned respondent authorities. Annexed hereto and marked Annexure-C collectively to this petition are the copies of the representations / reminders made by the petitioner. Thus for more than 1 ½ month in respect of 53 boxes, the concerned authorities had imposed restriction for usage.
3.6 The petitioner states that so far as the 40 boxes containing cooking butter seized by them without following due procedure, the concerned respondent officers i.e. respondent nos. 3 to 5 had destroyed the same on the alleged ground that the said boxes crossed the Expiry Date. The petitioner states that without property verifying the fact that the 40 boxes containing cooking butter had crossed the expiry date or not, in absolutely illegal and arbitrary manner the respondent nos. 3 to 5 had destroyed the same. That without drawing panchnama and Rojkam and without following due procedure the concerned officers of respondent corporation had destroyed the 40 boxes containing cooking butter and they prevented the petitioner from using 53 boxes containing cooking butter for 1 ½ months and ultimately those 53 boxes in respect of which restriction was imposed, were found upto the mark and as per the standards. That while seizing 40 boxes containing cooking butter, the petitioner was made to execute a writing under coercion, pressure and threat. That in fact all the 93 boxes were having same Batch Number / Lot Number and Expiry Date. However, 40 boxes were taken away by the concerned officers i.e. respondent nos. 3 to 5 and they were destroyed in absolutely illegal and arbitrary manner on the alleged ground of crossing expiry date and so far as the remaining 53 boxes are taken, the samples were taken from them and ultimately the said samples were found to be conformed to the standard. Thus, the respondent nos. 3 to 5 have caused financial loss of Rs.2.00 lacs to the petitioner by destroying 40 boxes containing cooking butter in illegal, arbitrary and high-handed manner. The petitioner states that the cost of 40 boxes containing cooking butter comes to Rs.2.00 lacs approximately.”
2.3 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that the respondent, particularly respondent nos. 3 to 5 destroyed the food articles of petitioner without following procedure prescribed under the Act.
2.4 Learned advocate for the petitioner also submitted that the said respondents acted without following procedure prescribed by the Act, hence appropriate departmental / disciplinary action as per applicable provision of the Corporation are required to be taken against the respondent Nos. 3 to 5.
2.5 Learned advocate for the petitioner has submitted that for the said purpose the petitioner had submitted application /representation requesting the Competent Authority to initiate departmental / disciplinary proceedings against the said respondents however, the Competent Officer has not initiated any action against the said officers.
2.6 Learned advocate for the petitioner further submitted that the petitioner also demand compensation in the sum of Rs. 2.00 lacs towards the financial loss caused to the petitioner because of the actions of respondent nos. 3 to 5.
3. So far as the petitioner's request for payment of compensation for alleged loss is concerned, it emerges from the petition that the petitioner has unilaterally quantified his claim at Rs. 2.00 lacs and has prayed that the respondent authorities should pay a sum of Rs.2.00 lacs towards compensation for the financial loss allegedly caused to the petitioner on account of action allegedly taken by the respondent nos. 3 to 5 without following procedure prescribed under the Act.
3.1 The said aspect of petitioner's request involve and give rise to several disputed issues of facts e.g. whether the respondent Nos. to 3 to 5 actually destroyed the packages containing butter or not and whether the action allegedly taken by the respondents were actually taken without following procedure prescribed by the Act or not and about the actual cost of the material allegedly destroyed on account of the action of the respondents, the exact quantity allegedly destroyed by said respondents. These are the matters involved in the relief prayed for and will require appropriate evidence, documentary and oral, including cross examination of petitioner.
3.2 The said process, including the process of determining / quantifying the financial loss allegedly suffered by the petitioner, cannot be undertaken in writ proceedings.
This is besides the fact that the aspects related to the alleged conduct of the respondents No. 3 to 5 are matter of internal administration of the Corporation.
3.3 Therefore, so far as said request and claim are concerned, the petitioner ought to invoke, if he so desires, ordinary civil remedy where the aforesaid process can be feasible and can be undertaken. The petition for entertaining such claim does not deserve to be entertained.
3.4 So far as the other request by the petitioner viz. the competent authority should initiate departmental / disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 is concerned, as mentioned above, if such request is entertained and granted then it would amount to Court's interference in day to day administration of respondent Corporation.
3.5 If any employee of the respondent Corporation has acted contrary to the applicable Disciplinary and Conduct Rules and / or applicable provision of the Act, then it is for the employer to take action against the erring employees.
3.6 However, Court merely on the basis of allegations made by the petitioner cannot issue direction to an employer to initiate action against its employee.
3.7 Such matters are purely in realm of internal management of the employer (in present case respondent Corporation) wherein the Court would not interfere by issuing any direction.
3.8 Moreover if the Court entertained and granted such request and issued direction as prayed for by the petitioner, it would amount to Court pre-judging the issue merely on the basis of unsubstantiated allegations made by the petitioner in present petition.
3.9 Therefore also the Court cannot entertain such request and cannot issue direction to the respondent Corporation or Municipal Commissioner to take any departmental / disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 3 to 5 for the actions allegedly taken by them which, according to petitioner's allegation, caused loss to the petitioner and were allegedly taken without following the procedure prescribed under the Act.
4. From the allegations made by the petitioner, it appears that the respondent Nos. 3 to 5 were performing their duties.
If employee commits any mistake in discharging his duties and functions and / or if the employee does not follow prescribed procedure and if such alleged conduct amounts to misconduct as per the applicable Rules, then it is for the employer of to take actions in accordance with law against its employees. It would not be proper or justified for the Court to issue such direction and that too at the instance of the petitioner. Therefore, on both counts the petition does not deserve to be entertained.
The petition therefore, fails and cannot be accepted. It is accordingly disposed of.
Sd/-
(K.M.THAKER,J.) Suresh*